Subject:
|
Shou shalt not steal?
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 23 Dec 2000 20:32:06 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
310 times
|
| |
|
|
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> I'm not sure what you are asking for, here. The "ten commandments" of
> objectivists, perhaps? In a previous thread (prior to D. Friedman being
> brought to my attention) I was arguing that they boil down to one: "Thou
> shalt not steal"....
Think I missed that thread-- But I'm gonna come in late and argue something
perhaps a little more basic:
Inter-human morality all boils down to:
"Thou shalt respect others."
Which really works great, I think.
"Thou shalt not kill" => "Thou shalt respect others' right to live."
"Thou shalt not steal" => "Thou shalt respect others' rights of property."
etc.
Christian moraltiy is something like:
"Thou shalt respect others more than thyself."
Now, I don't agree with this mainly because I'm against self-induced
martyrdom. To take it to the extreme, Christian morality might suggest that
if I kill myself in order for someone to get a PB&J rather than a ham
sandwich (cuz they like PB&J more than ham), and it was the only way to do
it, then I've committed a good act.
My personal morality would be something like:
"Thou shalt respect others as thyself."
Works great on both fronts-- Personally, I used to be more like the above. I
would sacrifice more of myself than what the other person would receive in
benefit on a rather regular basis. I've seen it in a couple people, but it
seems pretty rare. So for those people, it teaches them to love themselves
more. For others, who love themselves more than other people (being what we
all assume to be the target of Christian morality), it will get them to love
others more. Anyway, I think the ultimate goal is to love everyone equally--
not MORE or LESS than yourself, but equally and 'objectively'.
And potentially also:
"Thou shalt respect others as they respect you."
But that fits in with my moral theory that rights and individual morals
derive from societal experience, and can be different from person to person.
Hence, for the best society, everyone's interactions will follow the same
morality in each instance, without being the same from interaction to
interaction. That sounds a little complex maybe... hmm... dunno... maybe
I'll expound later...
$.02,
DaveE
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Shou shalt not steal?
|
| (...) I can agree with that one, in fact, that is essentially the 1st Unitarian Universalist principle: We afirm and promote: 1. The inherent worth and dignity of every person. I've always held that the rest effectively follow from the first: 2. (...) (24 years ago, 24-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Arguing about nature, Nature, and ethics
|
| (...) Feel free to call me Lar or Larry. (...) No, I don't think this is necessarily true (whether others agree with it or not). I am not a moral relativist. I think there is an objective morality that is proper and good for humans to embrace. I've (...) (24 years ago, 18-Dec-00, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
